The only thing that should get repealed is the ignorance of those wanting to deny health care to their fellow citizens.

Who was denied health care before the ACA. Nobody wants to deny health care now. You can't repeal ignorance, you can only hope liberals get a clue.............some day....

You're joking, right? At least 40 million Americans had no health insurance before the ACA. Another 100 million had substandard insurance subject to cancellation at any moment. The ACA has already reduced the number of uninsured Americans and all of those bad policies have been replaced with offers of better ones. I hope someday the Right gets a clue, but tightly closed minds rarely do.

By whose standards were the 100 million policies deemed "substandard" ?? Yours or 0bama's or ??The majority of these people liked their doctors and their existing policies and were told time and time again they could keep them. But we ALL know now that was a lie. But you can go ahead and call them bad or substandard if that makes you feel better about this train-wreck.

Mark Udall, when asked if he would vote for 0bamacare AGAIN. "I would do it again, Yes, I would."

The only thing that should get repealed is the ignorance of those wanting to deny health care to their fellow citizens.

Who was denied health care before the ACA. Nobody wants to deny health care now. You can't repeal ignorance, you can only hope liberals get a clue.............some day....

You're joking, right? At least 40 million Americans had no health insurance before the ACA. Another 100 million had substandard insurance subject to cancellation at any moment. The ACA has already reduced the number of uninsured Americans and all of those bad policies have been replaced with offers of better ones. I hope someday the Right gets a clue, but tightly closed minds rarely do.

Heath care and health insurance are not the same thing. Why haven't those 40 million signed up? They are still getting health care, but have no health insurance. Isn't that what this whole mess was suppose to be about? We were better off with those people going to the ER. People were told so many lies, why? If it is so wonderful, why isn't it selling itself. There is no real evidence that the UCA is working. The law should have either stood on it's own or it should have been repealed. These silly changes, based entirely on election politics, are not getting accomplished what the law was designed to do. This law will really blow up when businesses are mandated to comply. You have not seen anything yet.

First of all, the worst place to get non-emergent medical care is in an emergency room. It is insanely expensive and often people show up when it's too late, making it even more expensive. Who traditionally pays for that? Everyone with insurance and every taxpayer. That was unsustainable. The ACA begins to address that by extending Medicaid or providing subsidies to citizens who need it so they can see a doctor for check ups or whenever they need to, before it's too late.

You say the ACA isn't selling itself. Seven million people have signed up for insurance and millions more now have Medicaid. On March 31, the ACA website crashed twice because of the surge in demand. It seems to be selling pretty well.

The ACA is doing what it was intended to do: extend affordable health insurance options to more people and begin to contain spiraling costs. Statistical evidence supports that conclusion.

The only people playing politics with the ACA are the republicans, and that is already blowing up in their faces. They've already lost this fight, but hoping for failure is apparently a hard habit to break.

The only thing that should get repealed is the ignorance of those wanting to deny health care to their fellow citizens.

Who was denied health care before the ACA. Nobody wants to deny health care now. You can't repeal ignorance, you can only hope liberals get a clue.............some day....

You're joking, right? At least 40 million Americans had no health insurance before the ACA. Another 100 million had substandard insurance subject to cancellation at any moment. The ACA has already reduced the number of uninsured Americans and all of those bad policies have been replaced with offers of better ones. I hope someday the Right gets a clue, but tightly closed minds rarely do.

By whose standards were the 100 million policies deemed "substandard" ?? Yours or 0bama's or ??The majority of these people liked their doctors and their existing policies and were told time and time again they could keep them. But we ALL know now that was a lie. But you can go ahead and call them bad or substandard if that makes you feel better about this train-wreck.

Obama didn't lie. He was only guilty of brevity. Americans are not policy wonks who like to hear a lot of details in speeches. Obama could have said,

"If you like your insurance you can keep it...unless it doesn't meet the minimum standards of the ACA in which case, for your own good, your old policy will be cancelled in the coming year and replaced with a better policy. In fact, depending on which state you live in, you will be given many policy options to choose from. If you can't pay for it, you might be eligible for Medicaid or subsidies to buy private insurance. And if you think having insurance is an infringement on your freedom, you don't have to buy insurance at all, but when you pay your taxes you will have to pay a small penalty for failing to take responsibility for your own medical expenses because, if you don't, someone will have to, and that just isn't fair."

You didn't read your liberal talking point correctly - the phrase being recommended is to say that rates are rising at a "slower rate" than years past. This of course is meaningless to the millions who now will be paying much more to have insurance than they did before Obamacare was hatched.

"You didn't read your liberal talking point correctly - the phrase being recommended is to say that rates are rising at a "slower rate" than years past."

I don't use talking points! I listen to news from what I consider reliable sources (not this DP and DEFINITELY NOT FOX NOISE) and consider where the truth might lie. I do not assume that because Fox noise claims that rates will skyrocket because of ObamaCare, that any increase in rates justifies that claim, when insurance rates have been skyrocketing for years.

There is now evidence that rate increases are slowing, and I believe they are correct because we had been paying 30-35% more for healthcare than any other developed country due to excessive greed and profits in our old for profit healthcare system. We were leaving 40 million uninsured, and without healthcare, and allowing insurance companies to cancel policies when folks got sick, and/or cost too much to take care of. We had the equivalent of "death panels" under the old system. These were the insurance companies who were allowed to cancel policies at will, and we now longer allow this. ObamaCare also limits insurance companies profits, requiring that they spend about 85% of their income on actual care! Medicare has only 3-5% administrative costs, where under to old system private insurers were allowed 30-35% administrative costs. I'm also keeping my kids on my policy after college, and until they get established in the workplace.

More people are insured, costs increases are slowing, junk policies are gone, and costs are more focused on care, not profit. I'd still prefer single payer to ObamaCare, but ObamaCare is a huge improvement over the old system. If the old system had worked to provide good care, we would not have needed ObamaCare! Profit is NOT the best motivator to provide good quality goods and services in many cases, with healthcare being the present example. Police, prisons, schools, roads, are a few of many other examples. We need to learn how to better manage these functions thru government, not opt out ASSUMING that privatizing for profit is the answer. Profit often distorts the purpose, when the purpose applies to goods and services WE ALL NEED! Profit can be a useful tool to provide a lot of things consumers like. But when it comes to things people NEED, like healthcare, education, public safety, roads and the like, for profit providers only distort purpose and divide people into unnecessary classes of haves and have nots.

I agree with him on this - conservatives need to explain to Americans why they want to repeal these aspects of health care, and what they propose as an alternative. The prior situation was simply not working.

blue nation wrote;Obama didn't lie. He was only guilty of brevity. Americans are not policy wonks who like to hear a lot of details in speeches. Obama could have said,

"If you like your insurance you can keep it...unless it doesn't meet the minimum standards of the ACA in which case, for your own good, your old policy will be cancelled in the coming year and replaced with a better policy. In fact, depending on which state you live in, you will be given many policy options to choose from. If you can't pay for it, you might be eligible for Medicaid or subsidies to buy private insurance. And if you think having insurance is an infringement on your freedom, you don't have to buy insurance at all, but when you pay your taxes you will have to pay a small penalty for failing to take responsibility for your own medical expenses because, if you don't, someone will have to, and that just isn't fair."

He could have said that and much more, time permitting.

He's only guilty of brevity might be a handy way to weasel out of admitting that he lied by omission, but that doesn't even apply here, because he said "you can keep your insurance, PERIOD - you can keep your doctor, PERIOD." Thereby making it an outright lie.

Does "for your own good" include maternity coverage and fertility coverage and abortion coverage for a 55 year old never been married gay man? Where would that man be without obama's beneficence?

As for time permitting, that's just hilarious. I guess the networks' producer/directors were standing off to the side making furious hand gestures signaling him to rap it up because Dancing With the Stars was about to begin?